http://www.rcreader.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12534&Itemid=42
Should the Senate Ratify the U.N. Sea Treaty?
By Mark W. Hendrickson
River Cities' Reader
06 February 2008
There has been vigorous debate about whether the U.S. Senate should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST by its critics). The treaty has a wide-range of supporters in the United States. These reportedly include elements within the Pentagon who believe that UNCLOS would prevent foreign states from adopting arbitrary policies that interrupt normal naval operations. A primary objection of opponents is that UNCLOS would establish a dangerous precedent by authorizing the U.N.'s International Seabed Authority to collect taxes.
Would the provisions set forth in UNCLOS yield net gains for the United States? Opinions differ widely. It may be impossible to answer this question with certainty, and I won't even try. Instead, I think we should ask ourselves whether any treaty adopted by the U.N. is worth the paper on which it is printed.
[THESE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES and THEIR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES, before THE U.S. SENATE DECIDES TO RATIFY THE UNCLOS. THUS FAR, THE U.S. SENATE HAS ABDICATED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN VETTING THIS MOST SIGNIFICANT OF TREATIES. THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE REVIEW OF THIS TREATY WAS, AT MOST, A CURSORY REVIEW RELIANT MOSTLY UPON PRIOR YEARS' TESTIMONY THAT FAILED TO DELVE INTO MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES. AFTER ALL, ACCORDING TO UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI PROFESSOR OF LAW, BERNARD OXMAN, "[T]he LOS Convention...remains "the strongest comprehensive environmental treaty now in existence or likely to emerge for quite some time.” IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHAT LEGAL/REGULATORY OBLIGATIONS & ECONOMIC COSTS DOES/WILL THE UNCLOS PLACE ON THE UNITED STATES, ON LAND, IN TERRITORIAL WATERS, IN COASTAL WATERS, ON THE 'HIGH SEAS', TO PROTECT & PRESERVE THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT??? ISN'T THAT A VERY FAIR QUESTION TO ASK OUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TO WHICH AMERICANS DESERVE AN HONEST AND DETAILED RESPONSE?? IS THAT NOT OUR RIGHT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT??]
Any treaty is only as good as the honor of those who adopt it. The record of the U.N. does not inspire confidence.
[THIS IS ANOTHER EXCELLENT POINT. BUSINESS PEOPLE WOULD AGREE THAT A TREATY IS SORT OF LIKE A CONTRACT. AND, A BUSINESS CONTRACT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE HONOR AND RECORD OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT'S SIGNATORIES.]
• The U.N. voted to establish the state of Israel in Palestine. Almost ever since, the U.N. has adopted reams of discriminatory resolutions and sought to impose conditions that threaten Israel's very existence. This shows the U.N. to be fickle, even treacherous. Apparently, even most of the European states have no objection to Jews being annihilated as long as it doesn't happen within their own borders.
• The U.N. devised an "oil for food" program ostensibly to weaken the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and to prevent innocent Iraqis from suffering. It later came to light that France, Germany, Russia, and others were only too happy to profit from illicit deals and bribes that propped up Saddam and strengthened his cruel, tyrannical rule. If even some of our supposed friends will cheat on a "humanitarian" agreement, what hope of compliance with treaties can we realistically expect?
[THIS IS ANOTHER GOOD QUESTION. WHY DO THE UNCLOS TREATY PROPONENTS FIND IT ANNOYING THAT SUCH QUESTIONS ARE BEING ASKED??? DO THEY NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION & THE CONGRESS ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?? ARE THEY ABOVE THE LAW?]
• U.N. relief workers have been found to demand sexual favors from poor, defenseless individuals in order to receive the food and other desperately needed aid that had been donated to help those unfortunates.
Despite the specious record of the U.N., idealists who crave peace make common cause with realists who crave power to lobby for more and more authority to be vested in the U.N. Liberals who think that a business monopoly is a threat to the human race desire a political monopoly that they fantasize will be benevolent and just.
Liberals believe that if there were no more sovereign states, then there wouldn't be any more war. Well, there might not be "wars" in the traditional sense if a global government with an effective monopoly on force were ever created, but there would still be plenty of violence. Look, when the Soviet communists finally subdued internal armed resistance, there were no wars between the constituent republics, but the Soviet Union was still a very violent place. The state waged its own sort of war against all the subject peoples, with tens of millions executed or banished to Siberia as "enemies of the state." As destructive as war is (an estimated 45 million lives lost to war in the 20th Century), war is not nearly as deadly as governments that have fallen into the wrong hands (responsible for more than 120 million deaths in the 20th Century).
[WHY DO THESE PEOPLE OVERLOOK SUCH OBVIOUS FACTS?? ARE THEY NAIVE OR MERELY UTOPIANS?? OR BOTH??]
Do we really want to trust the U.N. - which not many years ago had such bloody, oppressive regimes as those of Cuba, Syria, Libya, and Sudan on its Human Rights Commission - to uphold the provisions of UNCLOS? The U.N. can't even abide by the most important agreement in its history: the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3 affirms, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person"; Article 4, that nobody shall be held "in servitude"; Article 7, "All are equal before the law ... ." A list of undemocratic governments that have violated those rights and committed the most heinous atrocities against their own citizens, and yet have been accepted as equals in the halls of the U.N., would fill a long paragraph. What grounds do we have for trusting such characters to honorably uphold and abide by the terms of UNCLOS? This seems to be an egregious case of wishful thinking.
[THIS IS ANOTHER EXCELLENT QUESTION. HOW CAN THE U.N. BE AN HONEST BROKER WHEN IT ENTERTAINS SUCH MEMBERSHIP IN IMPORTANT FORUMS IN THE NAME OF 'DIPLOMACY', 'TOLERANCE' & 'UNDERSTANDING'??? WHY SHOULD THE U.S. & OTHER COUNTRIES BE HELD TO A DOUBLE STANDARD?? HOW CAN THE U.N. GENERAL SECRETARIAT THAT OVERSEES THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNCLOS, ALONG WITH THE U.N. ENVIROMENT PROGRAM (UNEP), BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR U.S. REPRESENTATIVES??]
[THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS THAT THEY CANNOT BECAUSE OF 'ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY' GRANTED TO THE UN AND ITS BODIES. SECTION 4, SUBSECTION G, ARTICLE 177 OF THE UNCLOS EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY (ISBA) WITH ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. UNCLOS ARTICLES 178, 179 & 180 SERVE TO PROTECT THE ISBA AND ITS PROPERTY ASSETS LOCATED WITHIN EACH UN MEMBER TERRITORY FROM LEGAL PROCESS, SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND "RESTRICTIONS, REGULATIONS AND CONTROLS AND MORATORIA OF ANY KIND". FURTHERMORE, PURSUANT TO UNCLOS ARTICLE 181, THE ISBA ARCHIVES, WHEREVER LOCATED, ARE GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE & IMMUNITY OF 'NONVIOLABILITY'. MOREOVER, UNCLOS ARTICLE 182(a) PROVIDES THAT STATE PARTY REPRESENTATIVES PERFORMING OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS ON BEHALF OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR WORK IN THE ISBA ASSEMBLY, COUNCIL AND SUBSIDIARY ORGANS, AS WELL AS, THE ISBA EXECUTIVE AND ITS OFFICERS AND STAFF, ARE ALL IMMUNE FROM LEGAL PROCESS. SUCH PROTECTION FROM ACCOUNTABILITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BROAD AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION THAT HAS BEEN AFFORDED THE UNITED NATIONS AND ITS OFFICIALS, AS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY U.S. COURTS. THE KEY U.N. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CASE REMAINS De Luca v. United Nations Organization Perez de Cuellar, Gomez, Duque, Annan, et. al. (1994).]
Why are we wasting time with such a futile exercise? Given the track record of many of the U.N.'s member states, one can only conclude that they would love to hamstring the United States, figuring that we might make concessions and try to abide by the treaty even while other signatories flout it? Who needs a treaty like that?
[THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE ASKING OF THEIR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES. AND, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE WILLING AND EAGER TO ANSWER THEM.]
Mark W. Hendrickson is a faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Comments (3) >>
...written by Arsen, February 06, 2008I really need something up to date that says Law of the Sea will pass that is from last week.
...written by Caitlyn L. Antrim, February 06, 2008
[CAITLYN ANTRIM IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE RULE OF LAW COMMITTEE FOR THE OCEANS, and FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR LEADERSHIP IN GLOBAL DIPLOMACY].
It appears that you are mistaking title for substance. The "United Nations" in the title refers only to the fact that the Convention was negotiated at the UN. In fact the Convention is an agreement among states as to the rights of coastal states (to manage their territorial sea, their offshore fishing resources and the minerals of the continental shelf) and the rights of seafaring states (to free navigation on the high seas, including within the economic zone, passage through straits used for international navigation, and innocent passage through the territorial sea). The United Nations does not have a role here - rights and responsibilities belong to states. In some cases there are provisions for arbitration of disputes, but there are exceptions for military activities, boundary delimitation and actions under Security Council resolutions. Even then, disputes are tightly limited and the rules lean in our favor.
[WE BEG TO DIFFER. ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS, THE UNCLOS OPERATES "UNDER THE UN GENERAL SECRETARIAT." See: Lawrence Ziring, Robert E. Riggs and Jack C. Plano, The United Nations – International Organization and World Politics Third Edition (Harcourt College Publishers © 2000) at. p. 57. COMMENTATORS, AS WELL, HAVE NOTED HOW THE UNCLOS SECRETARIAT IS ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS, "INCLUDING THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO) AND UNEP...THAT DEAL WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT. THE IMO MANAGES AGREEMENTS CONCERNING POLLUTION FROM SHIPS; UNEP MANAGES THE REGIONAL SEAS PROGRAM; AND THE UNCLOS SECRETARIAT HANDLES THE BROADER LEGAL FRAMEWORK.” See Frank Biermann and Steffan Bauer, A World Environmental Organization: Solution or Threat for Effective International Environmental Governance (© 2000 Ashgate Publ.) at p. 190. IN ADDITION, “The UN GENERAL SECRETARIAT [ALSO] SERVES AS THE SECRETARIAT FOR...THE AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF 'THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA of 10 DECEMBER 1982, RELATING TO THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF STRADDLING FISH STOCKS AND HIGH MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS". See “International Environmental Governance: Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)”, Status of Multilateral Environmental Agreements UNEP/IGM/1/INF/3 (April 6, 2001) at par. 90.]
Only three cases provide for international bodies, and we intentionally decided to create new bodies rather then utilize the UN. One body is made up of geologists expert on reviewing limits to the continental shelf, another is an international tribunal that states may, but need not, choose to resolve disputes, and the third is the International Seabed Authority. The Authority as negotiated in 1982 was the reason for President Reagan's objections. It's powers and Authority, and the oversight role of the US, were renegotiated to our complete satisfaction in 1994. The US, once we join, will have a _permanent_ seat on the executive council and we will be able to veto any rule, regulation or amendment dealing with operations, budget or distribution of funds. In addition, the finances of the Authority are audited by commercial accounting companies. The entire staff of the authority is only 38 people, most of whom are clerks, administrative personnel, drivers and security personnel.
[THE POWERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY HAVE GRADUALLY EXPANDED SINCE THE 1994 AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED, WHICH WAS NOT ANTICIPATED BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AT THE TIME IT NEGOTIATED THE 1994 AGREEMENT. See: Myths and Realities Concerning UN Law of the Sea Treaty: LOST Does Incorporate Europe's contra-WTO Precautionary Principle! (c), at: http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/myths-and-realities-concerning-un-law.html . OR WAS IT??]
[See also: U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/62/215, Oceans and the Law of the Sea (March 14, 2008), at: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/476/67/PDF/N0747667.pdf?OpenElement (... The Area 33. Notes the progress of the discussions on issues relating to the regulations for prospecting and exploration for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the Area, and reiterates the importance of the ongoing elaboration by the Authority, pursuant to article 145 of the Convention, of rules, regulations and procedures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment, the protection and conservation of the natural resources of the Area and the prevention of damage to its flora and fauna from harmful effects that may arise from activities in the Area;").
[WHILE THE FINANCES OF THE AUTHORITY (ISBA) MAY BE AUDITED, WHO IS AUDITING THE AUDITORS?? “[A] CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE IN THE UNITED NATIONS HAS COME FORWARD TO ALLEGE THAT THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY (ISA) IS KNOWN FOR HAVING MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AND THAT IT SUFFERS FROM A LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND ETHICAL OVERSIGHT....Nithi Sam-Thambiah, WHO HAD BRIEFLY HELD THE POSITION OF CHIEF OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT AT THE ISA...WAS HIRED IN DECEMBER 2001. SIX MONTHS LATER HE SAYS HE WROTE A LETTER TO ISA SECRETARY-GENERAL Nandan REQUESTING A MEETING TO DISCUSS VARIOUS 'SENSITIVE' ISSUES, INCLUDING 'MISMANAGEMENT AND IRREGULARITIES' IN THE ORGANIZATION. ONE MONTH LATER, Sam-Thambia WAS FIRED..." See Cliff Kincaid, Scandal Rocks U.N. Sea Treaty Organization, Accuracy in Media (Oct. 16, 2007).]
If you don't like the UN, then you should give a new look at the LOS Convention because the convention not only avoids giving the UN power, it establishes an alternative body that incorporates features we would like to see added to the UN - particularly the permanent US seat, the introduction of chambered voting that enhances the influence of developed countries, and the requirement for consensus in financial decisions that gives the US a veto (but only if we join and attend so we can use it).
[SORRY TO SAY, NOT TOTALLY ACCURATE. See: Fact Sheet - U.S. Oceans Policy and the Law of the Sea Convention Released by the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (May 28, 1998) at: http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/oceans/fs_oceans_los.html , WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHILE A SEAT MAY BE GUARANTEED TO THE UNITED STATES ON THE COUNCIL OF THE ISBA AND ON THE COUNCIL'S FINANCE COMMITTEE, THE U.S. DOES NOT HAVE A GUARANTEED 'VETO' THAT CAN BE USED TO BLOCK DECISIONS THAT GO AGAINST U.S. INTERESTS. RATHER, ACCORDING TO THIS DOCUMENT, "THE EFFECT OF...A CHAMBERED VOTING ARRANGEMENT...[IN] THE COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY...IS TO ALLOW THE UNITED STATES AND TWO OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES ACTING IN CONCERT TO BLOCK A DECISION;" WHAT HAPPENS IF THE U.S. IS UNABLE TO SECURE THE AGREEMENT OF TWO OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO 'ACT IN CONCERT' TO BLOCK A DECISION THAT IS HOSTILE TO U.S. INTERESTS?? IN OTHER WORDS, THE U.S. WILL NEED TO RELY ON DIPLOMACY AND HORSETRADING WITH OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO SECURE A NEEDED VOTE AT THE RIGHT TIME; THEREFORE THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A VETO, CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN STATED! INDEED, AS FAR AS THE U.N. IS CONCERNED, IT IS ONLY IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL THAT THE U.S. WIELDS A GUARANTEED VETO. ("In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations [Chapter V, Article 27], decisions of the Security Council are made by an affirmative vote of nine members of the Council including the concurring votes of the five permanent members (China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America). If a permanent member casts a negative vote, the draft resolution being voted on is not passed.) See: Security Council - Voting Information, Introduction, United Nations Documents: Research Guide at: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scvote.htm].
The Convention is in place and running. As directed by President Reagan, we observe the convention as much as we can as a non-party already. As to the seabed provisions, the republican congresses failed to fund the US regime for seabed minerals that had been established in 1980. As a result, their is _no_ US seabed mining industry, even as Germany became the 8th consortia to be authorized by the Authority to have exclusive exploration rights for their minesite in the Pacific.
Attack the UN all you want. But you will find that the US negotiators of the LOS Convention anticipated your concern and avoided giving the UN any role in the Law of the Sea Convention.
[WHAT ABOUT THE INT'L TRIBUNAL ON THE LAW OF THE SEA?? THAT IS NOT A UN BODY?? WHAT ABOUT THE INT'L SEABED AUTHORITY?? THAT IS NOT A UN BODY?? ARE WE NOT CONTRADICTING OURSELVES HERE?? IF THAT IS THE CASE, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MUST DEMAND THAT THE U.S. CONGRESS CONVENE OPEN & TRANSPARENT PUBLIC HEARINGS PURSUANT TO WHICH IT, AND THE ADMINISTRATION, CAN SHARE THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNCLOS & THE PLANNING THAT HAS GONE INTO THE U.S. RATIFICATION POSITION. WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE??]
...written by Robert McManus, February 07, 2008
This is truly an idiotic screed: For starters, the UN has NO substantive responsibilities under the LOS Convention. (It's called UNCLOS because the conference that negotiated it was convened pursuant to a UN General Assembly Resolution in the 1960s.) Mr. Hendrickson admits he "won't even try" to figure out whether the treaty yields net gains to the US. This is an abdication of intellectual rigor that staggers the imagination, coming as it does from a putative educator. Less lazy individuals have answered that question affirmatively, including the Chief of Naval Ops (and all living former CNOs), the Joint Chiefs, the secretary of state, the president, the American Petroleum Institute, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (twice!), the Bush-appointed US Oceans Policy Commission (unanimously), and all living former chief counsels of the State Dept.
[WOW. THE UTTER CONTEMPT, INTOLERANCE AND RUDENESS SHOWN HERE FOR INQUIRING OR OPPOSING VIEWS IS ASTOUNDING. MR. MCMANUS SHOULD KNOW BETTER. HE IS AN ATTORNEY SUPPOSEDLY IN 'GOOD STANDING' IN WASHINGTON DC. See: http://www.kgrmlaw.com/index.php?page=44 . ALSO, MR. MCMANUS WAS ONCE A PUBLIC SERVANT. HE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT LAWYER FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) AND THE U.S. NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) See:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_J._McManus , WHICH IS WHY HE CLAIMS BELOW THAT HE IS THE AUTHORITY ON THE UNCLOS TREATY.]
Unlike Mr. Hendrickson, I am familiar with the ACTUAL PROVISIONS of the treaty, and would be happy to answer questions, with ACTUAL REFERENCES to the text. (I call this odd technique "scholarship.") For reasons I can't fathom, the far-right opponents of this treaty consider it some sort of saliva test, and deem its defeat sufficiently important to lie about its provisions in the press (or, as in Hendrickson's cae, to argue some irrelevant point about the UN).
[IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR. MCMANUS OPPOSES AND IS ANNOYED BY QUESTIONS THAT ORDINARY AMERICANS HAVE ABOUT THE U.N. AND THE UNCLOS, THE UNCLOS' MANY QUESTIONABLE PROVISIONS, ESPECIALLY THEIR 45 + ENVIRONNMENTAL ARTICLES, REGULATIONS, ANNEXES AND PROTOCOLS, THE FORMER THINKING BEHIND THE U.S. NEGOTIATING POSITION, AND THE CURRENT U.S. GOVERNMENT & EXPERT UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH U.S. SOVEREIGNTY WOULD BE LOST AT THE HANDS OF UNCLOS ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE ISBA & THE ITLOS, & REGARDING HOW TO COUNTER EFFORTS BY OTHER UNCLOS TREATY PARTIES, SUCH AS THE EUROPEAN UNION & ITS MEMBER STATES, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY EXPLOITING THE UNCLOS AT U.S. EXPENSE. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT MR. MCMANUS OPPOSES AND IS ANNOYED BY SUGGESTIONS THAT THE UNCLOS BE PUBLICLY & TRANSPARENTLY REVIEWED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS before THE U.S. SENATE RATIFIES IT. MR. MCMANUS: ARE YOU OPPOSED TO CONGRESS HONORING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH 'DUE PROCESS'??? IF SO, WHY??]
[MR. MCMANUS HAS ACTED THIS WAY BEFORE. See: Robert McManus, LOST at sea, Letter to the Editor, Washington Times (Aug. 10, 2007) at:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070810/EDITORIAL/108100010/-1/RSS_EDITORIAL&template=nextpage .]
Showing posts with label u.s. constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label u.s. constitution. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Reserve Officers Association Adopts 2008 Resolution Calling for US Senate to Withhold UNCLOS Ratification
http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resolution_0805
Resolution 08-05 Non-ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty
WHEREAS, there are valuable provisions in the Law of the Sea Treaty, there are also many provisions that cause concern; it is not enough to highlight the benefits of the treaty without weighing the commitments that would be the price for full American participation in this system;
WHEREAS, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a broad agreement including articles that affect the economy and the environment with the treaty covering seabed mining, navigation, fishing, ocean pollution, marine research, economic zones and in turn national security; and
WHEREAS, a fundamental premise of the treaty is that all un-owned resources on the ocean's floor belong to the people of the world, and the treaty creates levels of paid bureaucracy and an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to control these resources; and
WHEREAS, the ISA will regulate deep seabed mining and redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries through arbitrary, excessive application fees, annual fees and royalties; costs of access to raw materials are likely to inhibit development, depress productivity, increase costs, and discourage innovation; and
WHEREAS, many activists view the treaty as a far reaching environmental accord; setting a global standard and providing enforcement mechanisms so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks and prevent pollution; and
WHEREAS, ratification of the treaty may subject US Naval forces, and will subject U.S. martime and coastal industry to international tribunal or arbitration during disputes predicated on the treaty as geo-politics differs from law; and
WHEREAS, the treaty does not introduce any new protections for safe navigation on the high seas, but can introduce new risks that could impact the sovereignty over and the economy supported by the sea; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides in Article VI that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land” ratification may lead to international jurisdiction over U.S. interests;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urges the United States Senate, to deny ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Source: ROA Department of Texas Dec. 2007 Adopteded by the ROA National Council Feb. 13, 2008
Resolution 08-05 Non-ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty
WHEREAS, there are valuable provisions in the Law of the Sea Treaty, there are also many provisions that cause concern; it is not enough to highlight the benefits of the treaty without weighing the commitments that would be the price for full American participation in this system;
WHEREAS, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a broad agreement including articles that affect the economy and the environment with the treaty covering seabed mining, navigation, fishing, ocean pollution, marine research, economic zones and in turn national security; and
WHEREAS, a fundamental premise of the treaty is that all un-owned resources on the ocean's floor belong to the people of the world, and the treaty creates levels of paid bureaucracy and an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to control these resources; and
WHEREAS, the ISA will regulate deep seabed mining and redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries through arbitrary, excessive application fees, annual fees and royalties; costs of access to raw materials are likely to inhibit development, depress productivity, increase costs, and discourage innovation; and
WHEREAS, many activists view the treaty as a far reaching environmental accord; setting a global standard and providing enforcement mechanisms so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks and prevent pollution; and
WHEREAS, ratification of the treaty may subject US Naval forces, and will subject U.S. martime and coastal industry to international tribunal or arbitration during disputes predicated on the treaty as geo-politics differs from law; and
WHEREAS, the treaty does not introduce any new protections for safe navigation on the high seas, but can introduce new risks that could impact the sovereignty over and the economy supported by the sea; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides in Article VI that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land” ratification may lead to international jurisdiction over U.S. interests;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urges the United States Senate, to deny ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Source: ROA Department of Texas Dec. 2007 Adopteded by the ROA National Council Feb. 13, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Former Official Ignorant of UNCLOS’ Relationship to Evolving International Environmental Law
Unfortunately, Mr. Adelman’s recent commentary in the Washington Times (below) reflects either his lack of knowledge of OR his refusal to admit UNCLOS’ connection with the United Nations General Secretariat, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and the UN’s ambitious plan for UNEP reform. Pursuant to such plan, the UN/UNEP would utilize the UNCLOS’ ‘common heritage of mankind’ and environment centric-‘sustainable development’ –based legal framework to impose and enforce strict Precautionary Principle-premised regulations and to levy toll charges (user fees & behavior modification taxes) on ALL economic activity that passes through the great oceans and adjacent atmosphere highways to finance UN environmental governance reforms. That kind of nightmare will make any concern about the imposition of access charges upon U.S. companies for the right to engage in deep-seabed mining in ‘the Area’ only a bad dream.
Sea law turbulence
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/COMMENTARY/112120011/1012
December 12, 2007
By Ken Adelman -
The tranquil-sounding Law of the Sea (LOS) treaty somehow prompts lots of waves. The first storm arose 25 years ago, when President Reagan had the U.S. virtually stand alone against it.
The issue is back. It's still controversial, as Senate Republican leaders oppose ratification. Conservative stalwarts Ed Meese and Bill Clark feel its approval would betray the Reagan legacy.
The LOS accord, just sent out of committee, stands before the Senate for a vote this month. The Senate should ratify it — partly on the merits, but also to reinforce Reagan's biggest legacy, that standing alone on principle can pay off. If you stand right on the merits, eventually others come around.
In 1982, Reagan turned the tide on the LOS effort, under way by some 150 countries over the previous 10 years. During a few National Security Council meetings — which I attended as deputy to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick's — Reagan called the deep-sea mining provisions global socialism. [IT STILL IS, MORE THAN 25 YEARS LATER]**
He subsequently appointed a presidential envoy for LOS, Don Rumsfeld, who asked me along on his global mission. It took us 33,000 miles into seven countries on what my wife dubbed "scuttle diplomacy."
Before taking off, we met in the Oval Office where the president's passion and points became clear. Don Rumsfeld did a superb job presenting them to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, French President Francois Mitterrand, and leaders in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Japan.
After Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher read her bureaucracy's recondite points favoring LOS, Mr. Rumsfeld lifted the discussion to Reaganesque heights: "Madam Prime Minister, do you really want to support international socialism? To build up the international bureaucracy? To have it run a cartel? To enforce a mandatory transfer of technology? Do you really want all that in our future?"
It was quite a scene — Mr. Rumsfeld smartly presenting Reagan. This convinced the Iron Lady that, no, she did not. Hence, Britain and other key nations joined in opposing LOS.
During sundry meetings before our trip, Reagan related how he considered the deep-sea mining provisions a wedge into international socialism. He deemed the new LOS institution — with the quaint Orwellian name of The Authority, yet without any U.S. veto power — as a precursor to world federalism. Reagan despised its mandatory technology transfer and its autonomous funding of so-called liberation movements.
This litany became Mr. Rumsfeld's script to world leaders, since it was Reagan's script to us.
Don't just take my word for it. In his Jan. 29, 1982, document on LOS, Reagan listed these very issues in six bullets. He explicitly pledged that, if the LOS negotiators "find ways to fulfill these key objectives, my administration will support ratification."
Subsequent administrations have found ways. The first Bush administration began fixing Reagan's biggest bugaboo, the deep seabed mining provisions, which the Clinton team deftly completed. This Bush administration devised critical understandings to clarify and protect U.S. national interests.
[NO PROOF OF THIS HAS YET BEEN ADDUCED]**
The LOS convention has already been joined by 154 nations. Companies from members Canada, Australia and Germany have licenses for deep-sea mining while U.S. companies wait and support ratification here.
Reagan's "key objectives" have been met, as free market principles now apply to deep-sea mining. Private firms can mine the minerals, with the legal assurances they need for large-scale, long-term investments. American firms would have their claims protected. [NOT TRUE]**
Gone is any mandatory technology transfer. Gone is any bulk-up of multilateral institutions. Gone is key decisionmaking without U.S. participation. With ratification comes a permanent U.S. seat on the decisionmaking body, with veto power on all key issues.
[NOT TRUE]**
Again, don't just take my word for it. Because Reagan's fixes were made, both his secretaries of state — Alexander M. Haig Jr. and George P. Shultz — switched from opposing to backing LOS ratification. As has Reagan's Chief of Staff and President H.W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker. Likewise for this President Bush's two secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
Over LOS' turbulent history, its deficiencies have drowned out its upsides. They are real, and fairly impressive.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly supports LOS to assure us the greatest ocean and air navigation rights. LOS reinforces our Navy's legal right to steam through critical choke points around the globe.
U.S. mining firms strongly support LOS for assuring our legal rights to explore and exploit resources at least 200 nautical miles offshore. Off Alaska, where resources seem most abundant, it ensures our rights over the seabeds up to 600 miles. Our rights over this "extended continental shelf," estimated to hold more than $1 trillion in resources, are among the largest of any country. And environmental groups consider LOS beneficial to healthy oceans.
Even Reagan was sometimes accused of betraying Reaganism. At the 1988 Moscow summit, he was asked about his new coziness with Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the "evil empire." Reagan said he hadn't changed — it had. Likewise his objections to the LOS treaty haven't changed — it has. The treaty has been fixed, right along the lines he sought.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE; WHILE THE TREATY HAS REMAINED STATIONARY IN TIME, THE NUMBER OF OTHER TREATIES THAT RELATE TO AND IMPACT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UNCLOS, HAS RAPIDLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY GROWN]**
Ronald Reagan could take "yes" for an answer, smiling when he got to do so. We should be like him in that, too.
Ken Adelman is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and arms control director under President Ronald Reagan. [TITLES ALONE ARE NOT CONVINCING]**
Sea law turbulence
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/COMMENTARY/112120011/1012
December 12, 2007
By Ken Adelman -
The tranquil-sounding Law of the Sea (LOS) treaty somehow prompts lots of waves. The first storm arose 25 years ago, when President Reagan had the U.S. virtually stand alone against it.
The issue is back. It's still controversial, as Senate Republican leaders oppose ratification. Conservative stalwarts Ed Meese and Bill Clark feel its approval would betray the Reagan legacy.
The LOS accord, just sent out of committee, stands before the Senate for a vote this month. The Senate should ratify it — partly on the merits, but also to reinforce Reagan's biggest legacy, that standing alone on principle can pay off. If you stand right on the merits, eventually others come around.
In 1982, Reagan turned the tide on the LOS effort, under way by some 150 countries over the previous 10 years. During a few National Security Council meetings — which I attended as deputy to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick's — Reagan called the deep-sea mining provisions global socialism. [IT STILL IS, MORE THAN 25 YEARS LATER]**
He subsequently appointed a presidential envoy for LOS, Don Rumsfeld, who asked me along on his global mission. It took us 33,000 miles into seven countries on what my wife dubbed "scuttle diplomacy."
Before taking off, we met in the Oval Office where the president's passion and points became clear. Don Rumsfeld did a superb job presenting them to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, French President Francois Mitterrand, and leaders in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Japan.
After Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher read her bureaucracy's recondite points favoring LOS, Mr. Rumsfeld lifted the discussion to Reaganesque heights: "Madam Prime Minister, do you really want to support international socialism? To build up the international bureaucracy? To have it run a cartel? To enforce a mandatory transfer of technology? Do you really want all that in our future?"
It was quite a scene — Mr. Rumsfeld smartly presenting Reagan. This convinced the Iron Lady that, no, she did not. Hence, Britain and other key nations joined in opposing LOS.
During sundry meetings before our trip, Reagan related how he considered the deep-sea mining provisions a wedge into international socialism. He deemed the new LOS institution — with the quaint Orwellian name of The Authority, yet without any U.S. veto power — as a precursor to world federalism. Reagan despised its mandatory technology transfer and its autonomous funding of so-called liberation movements.
This litany became Mr. Rumsfeld's script to world leaders, since it was Reagan's script to us.
Don't just take my word for it. In his Jan. 29, 1982, document on LOS, Reagan listed these very issues in six bullets. He explicitly pledged that, if the LOS negotiators "find ways to fulfill these key objectives, my administration will support ratification."
Subsequent administrations have found ways. The first Bush administration began fixing Reagan's biggest bugaboo, the deep seabed mining provisions, which the Clinton team deftly completed. This Bush administration devised critical understandings to clarify and protect U.S. national interests.
[NO PROOF OF THIS HAS YET BEEN ADDUCED]**
The LOS convention has already been joined by 154 nations. Companies from members Canada, Australia and Germany have licenses for deep-sea mining while U.S. companies wait and support ratification here.
Reagan's "key objectives" have been met, as free market principles now apply to deep-sea mining. Private firms can mine the minerals, with the legal assurances they need for large-scale, long-term investments. American firms would have their claims protected. [NOT TRUE]**
Gone is any mandatory technology transfer. Gone is any bulk-up of multilateral institutions. Gone is key decisionmaking without U.S. participation. With ratification comes a permanent U.S. seat on the decisionmaking body, with veto power on all key issues.
[NOT TRUE]**
Again, don't just take my word for it. Because Reagan's fixes were made, both his secretaries of state — Alexander M. Haig Jr. and George P. Shultz — switched from opposing to backing LOS ratification. As has Reagan's Chief of Staff and President H.W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker. Likewise for this President Bush's two secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
Over LOS' turbulent history, its deficiencies have drowned out its upsides. They are real, and fairly impressive.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly supports LOS to assure us the greatest ocean and air navigation rights. LOS reinforces our Navy's legal right to steam through critical choke points around the globe.
U.S. mining firms strongly support LOS for assuring our legal rights to explore and exploit resources at least 200 nautical miles offshore. Off Alaska, where resources seem most abundant, it ensures our rights over the seabeds up to 600 miles. Our rights over this "extended continental shelf," estimated to hold more than $1 trillion in resources, are among the largest of any country. And environmental groups consider LOS beneficial to healthy oceans.
Even Reagan was sometimes accused of betraying Reaganism. At the 1988 Moscow summit, he was asked about his new coziness with Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the "evil empire." Reagan said he hadn't changed — it had. Likewise his objections to the LOS treaty haven't changed — it has. The treaty has been fixed, right along the lines he sought.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE; WHILE THE TREATY HAS REMAINED STATIONARY IN TIME, THE NUMBER OF OTHER TREATIES THAT RELATE TO AND IMPACT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UNCLOS, HAS RAPIDLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY GROWN]**
Ronald Reagan could take "yes" for an answer, smiling when he got to do so. We should be like him in that, too.
Ken Adelman is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and arms control director under President Ronald Reagan. [TITLES ALONE ARE NOT CONVINCING]**
Friday, January 18, 2008
Sea Treaty Threatens States’ and Nation’s Sovereignty
http://www.alec.org/news.html
ALEC News
American Legislative Exchange Council
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Last Wednesday, October 31, The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the U.N.’s Law of the Sea treaty (L.O.S.T.) to the full Senate for consideration. This treaty, which has been waiting 37 years for ratification, requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
The treaty, which was originally rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, has been revived with the support of the Bush Administration. The treaty threatens our nation’s sovereignty by allowing the United Nations (UN) to regulate sea and land pollution and enact global taxes.
Environmental protection provisions in L.O.S.T. will impact all states. Unbelievably, the treaty allows the UN to regulate pollution from “land-based sources.” This will have a direct impact on all states. According to Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, Chair of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force, “The people of my state expect lawmakers, not unelected bureaucrats at the UN to make environmental and tax policy.”
Aside from regulating our environmental polices, L.O.S.T. empowers the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to impose taxes on American companies. Natural gas and oil companies, which export minerals more than 200 miles off shore, will be forced to pay seven percent of their profits to the I.S.A. Lynn added that “This treaty is a terrible idea that would give the United Nations control over seven-tenths of the world’s surface. We must be cautious because he who rules the sea will rule the land."
Furthermore, the UN body that will administer L.O.S.T. only gives the U.S. one vote and no veto authority. This will, in effect, allow an international body to impose environmental regulations and tax policy on our citizens without even the support of our representative at the UN—let alone voters.
ALEC News
American Legislative Exchange Council
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Last Wednesday, October 31, The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the U.N.’s Law of the Sea treaty (L.O.S.T.) to the full Senate for consideration. This treaty, which has been waiting 37 years for ratification, requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
The treaty, which was originally rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, has been revived with the support of the Bush Administration. The treaty threatens our nation’s sovereignty by allowing the United Nations (UN) to regulate sea and land pollution and enact global taxes.
Environmental protection provisions in L.O.S.T. will impact all states. Unbelievably, the treaty allows the UN to regulate pollution from “land-based sources.” This will have a direct impact on all states. According to Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, Chair of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force, “The people of my state expect lawmakers, not unelected bureaucrats at the UN to make environmental and tax policy.”
Aside from regulating our environmental polices, L.O.S.T. empowers the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to impose taxes on American companies. Natural gas and oil companies, which export minerals more than 200 miles off shore, will be forced to pay seven percent of their profits to the I.S.A. Lynn added that “This treaty is a terrible idea that would give the United Nations control over seven-tenths of the world’s surface. We must be cautious because he who rules the sea will rule the land."
Furthermore, the UN body that will administer L.O.S.T. only gives the U.S. one vote and no veto authority. This will, in effect, allow an international body to impose environmental regulations and tax policy on our citizens without even the support of our representative at the UN—let alone voters.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
EU HIDES BEHIND ‘PRIVATE’ STANDARDS EFFORT TO SECURE GLOBAL REGULATORY CONTROL
October 22, 2007
Developing Countries May Have New Grounds to Bring WTO Actions Against Europe
Princeton, NJ – October 9, 2007 – In the current issue of the Global Trade and Customs Journal, international trade and regulatory lawyer Lawrence Kogan details how the European Union and its member states previously enlisted private European environmental standards bodies to promote official government sustainable forest management policies that likely violated the World Trade Organization rights of developing countries and their industries.
In addition, the article describes how these same EU governments are behind the ongoing efforts of other European pressure groups to promote, via United Nations agencies and international standardization organizations, the adoption by global industry supply chains of overly strict corporate social responsibility standards.
According to Mr. Kogan, “It is no secret that the EU aspires to ‘usurp America’s role as a source of global standards’, and to become ‘the world’s regulatory capital’ and ‘standard-bearer’”. Therefore, it is natural that they would endeavor to employ whatever nontransparent means are available to push their regulatory control agenda forward.” As EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson claimed in a prior speech, ‘exporting our rules and standards around the world is one source [and expression] of European power’”.
Two recent articles appearing in the Financial Times and the Economist confirm this assessment. “The Commission, the EU’s executive body, states openly that it wants other countries to follow EU rules and its officials are working hard to put that vision into practice...[T]he Union [has]... a body of law running to almost 95,000 pages - a set of rules and regulations that covers virtually all aspects of economic life and that is constantly expanded and updated. Compared with other jurisdictions, the EU’s rules tend to be stricter, especially where product safety, consumer protection and environmental and health [sustainable development] requirements are concerned”.
The European regulatory model is worrisome, emphasizes Kogan, paraphrasing from one article, especially “because ‘it rests on the [standard-of-proof-diminishing, burden-of-proof-reversing, guilty-until-proven-innocent, I-fear-therefore-I-shall-ban, hazard-(not risk)-based] Precautionary Principle’, which is inconsistent with both WTO law and US constitutionally-guaranteed private property rights”. As another article reaffirms, “In Europe corporate innocence is not assumed. Indeed, a vast slab of EU laws...reverses the burden of proof, asking industry to demonstrate that substances are harmless...[T]he philosophical gap reflects the American constitutional tradition that everything is allowed until it is forbidden, against the Napoleonic tradition codifying what the state allows and banning everything else.”
“Notwithstanding its knowledge of Europe’s extraterritorial activities”, warns Kogan, “the 110th US Congress may soon ratify the UN Law of the Sea Convention without all of its committees possessing oversight jurisdiction having first adequately reviewed in public hearings its 45-plus environmental regulatory articles - which also incorporate Europe’s Precautionary Principle!
This would essentially open up the floodgates to a tsunami of costly non-science and non-economics-based environmental laws, regulations and standards that would abridge Americans’ Fifth Amendment rights, impair U.S. industry’s global economic competitiveness and fundamentally reshape the American legal and free enterprise systems.
The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD) is a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. This ITSSD study and related materials are accessible online at:
http://www.itssd.org/GTCJ_03-offprints%20KOGAN%20-%20Discerning%20the%20Forest%20from%20the%20Trees.pdf
http://www.itssd.org/Programs/ITSSDAssessmentISO26000Standard.pdf
Developing Countries May Have New Grounds to Bring WTO Actions Against Europe
Princeton, NJ – October 9, 2007 – In the current issue of the Global Trade and Customs Journal, international trade and regulatory lawyer Lawrence Kogan details how the European Union and its member states previously enlisted private European environmental standards bodies to promote official government sustainable forest management policies that likely violated the World Trade Organization rights of developing countries and their industries.
In addition, the article describes how these same EU governments are behind the ongoing efforts of other European pressure groups to promote, via United Nations agencies and international standardization organizations, the adoption by global industry supply chains of overly strict corporate social responsibility standards.
According to Mr. Kogan, “It is no secret that the EU aspires to ‘usurp America’s role as a source of global standards’, and to become ‘the world’s regulatory capital’ and ‘standard-bearer’”. Therefore, it is natural that they would endeavor to employ whatever nontransparent means are available to push their regulatory control agenda forward.” As EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson claimed in a prior speech, ‘exporting our rules and standards around the world is one source [and expression] of European power’”.
Two recent articles appearing in the Financial Times and the Economist confirm this assessment. “The Commission, the EU’s executive body, states openly that it wants other countries to follow EU rules and its officials are working hard to put that vision into practice...[T]he Union [has]... a body of law running to almost 95,000 pages - a set of rules and regulations that covers virtually all aspects of economic life and that is constantly expanded and updated. Compared with other jurisdictions, the EU’s rules tend to be stricter, especially where product safety, consumer protection and environmental and health [sustainable development] requirements are concerned”.
The European regulatory model is worrisome, emphasizes Kogan, paraphrasing from one article, especially “because ‘it rests on the [standard-of-proof-diminishing, burden-of-proof-reversing, guilty-until-proven-innocent, I-fear-therefore-I-shall-ban, hazard-(not risk)-based] Precautionary Principle’, which is inconsistent with both WTO law and US constitutionally-guaranteed private property rights”. As another article reaffirms, “In Europe corporate innocence is not assumed. Indeed, a vast slab of EU laws...reverses the burden of proof, asking industry to demonstrate that substances are harmless...[T]he philosophical gap reflects the American constitutional tradition that everything is allowed until it is forbidden, against the Napoleonic tradition codifying what the state allows and banning everything else.”
“Notwithstanding its knowledge of Europe’s extraterritorial activities”, warns Kogan, “the 110th US Congress may soon ratify the UN Law of the Sea Convention without all of its committees possessing oversight jurisdiction having first adequately reviewed in public hearings its 45-plus environmental regulatory articles - which also incorporate Europe’s Precautionary Principle!
This would essentially open up the floodgates to a tsunami of costly non-science and non-economics-based environmental laws, regulations and standards that would abridge Americans’ Fifth Amendment rights, impair U.S. industry’s global economic competitiveness and fundamentally reshape the American legal and free enterprise systems.
The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD) is a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. This ITSSD study and related materials are accessible online at:
http://www.itssd.org/GTCJ_03-offprints%20KOGAN%20-%20Discerning%20the%20Forest%20from%20the%20Trees.pdf
http://www.itssd.org/Programs/ITSSDAssessmentISO26000Standard.pdf
Protecting Our National Sovereignty – Senator John Cornyn// Mike Huckabee denounces U.N. Power Grab
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ForPress.TexasTimesWeeklyColumn&ContentRecord_id=c7ede392-802a-23ad-49c9-c0817d355fb4&Region_id=&Issue_id
Protecting Our National Sovereignty
By U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Our state and our country are struggling to keep up with the effects of globalization—the increasingly free flow of ideas, information, goods and capital across borders and around the world.
One major challenge is making certain that our national sovereignty is protected, even as international commerce increases. This is no small matter. Our sovereignty is the foundation for our freedom.
Sovereignty should rest strictly with the American people. We cannot allow a foreign country or an international organization to make decisions that should be our own exclusive province, based on our own national interests.
The U.S. Senate is currently debating the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), a document that I believe poses a threat to these concepts. The treaty has been signed by 155 countries. But President Reagan rejected it in 1982, and the Senate refused to ratify a different version approved by President Clinton in 1994. Now it’s back.
LOST sets up an international bureaucracy under the United Nations that would control the world’s oceans and everything in them as “the common heritage of mankind.” Any revenues produced by exploiting resources, such as oil discovered in international waters, would be allocated and divided by international tribunals.
LOST agencies would have authority to levy royalties and fees—effectively the first international tax. Some critics believe the treaty would lead to decisions by an international tribunal regulating the environment, not only in the ocean but all over the globe.
The Bush Administration is pushing the Senate to ratify the treaty this time. It’s needed to ensure that our Navy can navigate anywhere, it says, and to protect our ability to share in undersea resources, such as petroleum that might be found under the Arctic Circle.
In my view, our historical experience with international organizations has not been satisfactory. We are often outvoted, without good cause. The United Nations has earned a dismal and deteriorating record for corruption, highlighted by complicity in the largest fraud in history, the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. More recently, the U.N. has been accused of tolerating bribe s and kickbacks in dispensing aid to tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.
U.N. efforts have been particularly ineffectual in resolving real conflicts. I believe the best insurance for orderly management of the high seas—and effective protection of U.S. sovereign interests—is a strong U.S. Navy. This concept has served us well for 200 years.
* * *
In mid-October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a criminal case from Texas that poses yet another threat to our sovereignty. The case involved Jose Ernesto Medellin, a foreign citizen convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 in the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.
Long after his sentence was final, Medellin’s lawyers came up with a new appeal point. They argued that because Medellin was not a U.S. citizen, and under the Vienna Convention the Mexican consulate should have been notified when he was arrested, his appeal should be reopened. This argument was accepted in 2004 by a foreign tribunal, the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Medellin was indeed born in Mexico, but lived in the U.S. most of his life. He speaks, reads and writes English, and attended U.S. schools. Disappointingly, the Bush Administration has issued a directive to Texas officials attempting to enforce the foreign court’s judgment, and also backed Medellin’s side at the U.S. Supreme Court.
I have argued that the President lacks constitutional authority to direct Texas to reopen Medellin’s conviction. In my opinion, the President cannot by himself tr ansform an international treaty, and especially a foreign court’s judgment, into domestic law.
* * *
In recent years, some Supreme Court Justices have shown a willingness to cite the law of other countries as support for their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. That’s yet another unwelcome trend, in my opinion.
The U.S. constitutional system is the product of our unique American experience. It has produced the most successful country in history, a nation that has been “the shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world.
We should do everything possible to protect that legacy. The world depends upon our leadership.
Sen. Cornyn serves on the Armed Services, Judiciary and Budget Committees. In addition, he is Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Refugees subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee’s Airland subcommittee. Cornyn served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice and Bexar County District Judge
******************************
Press Release: Mike Huckabee denounces U.N. Power Grab
Challenges Republican Candidates to Join Him in Opposing LOST
October 09, 2007
(Detroit, Michigan) On the eve of tonight’s GOP debate in Michigan, Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee joined Ronald Reagan in opposition to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). He called on his rivals for the nomination to join him in rejecting a treaty that would surrender control of seven-tenths of the world’s surface – its oceans – to a UN-affiliated organization. Gov. Huckabee declared today:
“The Law of the Sea Treaty is one of the defining issues of our time. Are we in favor of increasing the power and authority of the United Nations and its subsidiaries at the expense of American sovereignty and vital interests? Or are we opposed to world government, particularly the one envisioned by LOST, charged with implementing a hopelessly outdated and counterproductive socialist and redistributionist agenda from the 1970s? Republicans – starting with their presidential candidates – should stand with Ronald Reagan in rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty, its threat to our sovereignty and its socialist agenda.”
Gov. Huckabee noted that two of President Reagan’s closest associates – his National Security Advisor, William P. Clark, and his Attorney General Edwin Meese – yesterday published an op.ed. article in the Wall Street Journal making clear the basis of President Reagan’s rejection of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
“Proponents of LOST want us to believe that Ronald Reagan would have supported ratification of this treaty with some tinkering at the margins. In fact, as Judge Clark and General Meese have made clear, Mr. Reagan recognized that the central concept behind this treaty – a supranational government with the authority to determine what can and cannot be done on, beneath and even above the seas – was not in America’s interests.”
Gov. Huckabee objected to the fact that the U.S. Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty with only one committee – the Foreign Relations Committee – having held hearings on it during this session of Congress and only two witnesses opposed to ratification being afforded the opportunity to testify. He noted that as many as eight other Senate committees have jurisdiction over areas affected by the Treaty and urged them to engage in rigorous oversight before any action is taken by the full Senate.
Gov. Huckabee called on his rivals for the GOP nomination to use the present campaign as an opportunity to educate the American people about LOST and to join him in making clear that, like Ronald Reagan, they will not submit U.S. sovereignty to a UN on steroids.
Protecting Our National Sovereignty
By U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Our state and our country are struggling to keep up with the effects of globalization—the increasingly free flow of ideas, information, goods and capital across borders and around the world.
One major challenge is making certain that our national sovereignty is protected, even as international commerce increases. This is no small matter. Our sovereignty is the foundation for our freedom.
Sovereignty should rest strictly with the American people. We cannot allow a foreign country or an international organization to make decisions that should be our own exclusive province, based on our own national interests.
The U.S. Senate is currently debating the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), a document that I believe poses a threat to these concepts. The treaty has been signed by 155 countries. But President Reagan rejected it in 1982, and the Senate refused to ratify a different version approved by President Clinton in 1994. Now it’s back.
LOST sets up an international bureaucracy under the United Nations that would control the world’s oceans and everything in them as “the common heritage of mankind.” Any revenues produced by exploiting resources, such as oil discovered in international waters, would be allocated and divided by international tribunals.
LOST agencies would have authority to levy royalties and fees—effectively the first international tax. Some critics believe the treaty would lead to decisions by an international tribunal regulating the environment, not only in the ocean but all over the globe.
The Bush Administration is pushing the Senate to ratify the treaty this time. It’s needed to ensure that our Navy can navigate anywhere, it says, and to protect our ability to share in undersea resources, such as petroleum that might be found under the Arctic Circle.
In my view, our historical experience with international organizations has not been satisfactory. We are often outvoted, without good cause. The United Nations has earned a dismal and deteriorating record for corruption, highlighted by complicity in the largest fraud in history, the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. More recently, the U.N. has been accused of tolerating bribe s and kickbacks in dispensing aid to tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.
U.N. efforts have been particularly ineffectual in resolving real conflicts. I believe the best insurance for orderly management of the high seas—and effective protection of U.S. sovereign interests—is a strong U.S. Navy. This concept has served us well for 200 years.
* * *
In mid-October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a criminal case from Texas that poses yet another threat to our sovereignty. The case involved Jose Ernesto Medellin, a foreign citizen convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 in the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.
Long after his sentence was final, Medellin’s lawyers came up with a new appeal point. They argued that because Medellin was not a U.S. citizen, and under the Vienna Convention the Mexican consulate should have been notified when he was arrested, his appeal should be reopened. This argument was accepted in 2004 by a foreign tribunal, the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Medellin was indeed born in Mexico, but lived in the U.S. most of his life. He speaks, reads and writes English, and attended U.S. schools. Disappointingly, the Bush Administration has issued a directive to Texas officials attempting to enforce the foreign court’s judgment, and also backed Medellin’s side at the U.S. Supreme Court.
I have argued that the President lacks constitutional authority to direct Texas to reopen Medellin’s conviction. In my opinion, the President cannot by himself tr ansform an international treaty, and especially a foreign court’s judgment, into domestic law.
* * *
In recent years, some Supreme Court Justices have shown a willingness to cite the law of other countries as support for their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. That’s yet another unwelcome trend, in my opinion.
The U.S. constitutional system is the product of our unique American experience. It has produced the most successful country in history, a nation that has been “the shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world.
We should do everything possible to protect that legacy. The world depends upon our leadership.
Sen. Cornyn serves on the Armed Services, Judiciary and Budget Committees. In addition, he is Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Refugees subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee’s Airland subcommittee. Cornyn served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice and Bexar County District Judge
******************************
Press Release: Mike Huckabee denounces U.N. Power Grab
Challenges Republican Candidates to Join Him in Opposing LOST
October 09, 2007
(Detroit, Michigan) On the eve of tonight’s GOP debate in Michigan, Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee joined Ronald Reagan in opposition to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). He called on his rivals for the nomination to join him in rejecting a treaty that would surrender control of seven-tenths of the world’s surface – its oceans – to a UN-affiliated organization. Gov. Huckabee declared today:
“The Law of the Sea Treaty is one of the defining issues of our time. Are we in favor of increasing the power and authority of the United Nations and its subsidiaries at the expense of American sovereignty and vital interests? Or are we opposed to world government, particularly the one envisioned by LOST, charged with implementing a hopelessly outdated and counterproductive socialist and redistributionist agenda from the 1970s? Republicans – starting with their presidential candidates – should stand with Ronald Reagan in rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty, its threat to our sovereignty and its socialist agenda.”
Gov. Huckabee noted that two of President Reagan’s closest associates – his National Security Advisor, William P. Clark, and his Attorney General Edwin Meese – yesterday published an op.ed. article in the Wall Street Journal making clear the basis of President Reagan’s rejection of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
“Proponents of LOST want us to believe that Ronald Reagan would have supported ratification of this treaty with some tinkering at the margins. In fact, as Judge Clark and General Meese have made clear, Mr. Reagan recognized that the central concept behind this treaty – a supranational government with the authority to determine what can and cannot be done on, beneath and even above the seas – was not in America’s interests.”
Gov. Huckabee objected to the fact that the U.S. Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty with only one committee – the Foreign Relations Committee – having held hearings on it during this session of Congress and only two witnesses opposed to ratification being afforded the opportunity to testify. He noted that as many as eight other Senate committees have jurisdiction over areas affected by the Treaty and urged them to engage in rigorous oversight before any action is taken by the full Senate.
Gov. Huckabee called on his rivals for the GOP nomination to use the present campaign as an opportunity to educate the American people about LOST and to join him in making clear that, like Ronald Reagan, they will not submit U.S. sovereignty to a UN on steroids.
US Citizens Seeking Thorough Congressional Review of UNCLOS Win Debate Against US Navy
U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty - Historic Step Forward or Historic Blunder?
Accessible on the Reserved Officers Association website, at:
http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=law_of_sea_video
Accessible on the ITSSD website, at:
Date/Time:
Oct 17 200710:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Location:
ROA Headquarters Minuteman Memorial BuildingSymposium Center, 4th Floor One Constitution Ave NEWashington, DC 20002Directions to ROA
Panel:
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President - Center for Security Policy
Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO - Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)
CAPT Patrick Neher, USN - Office of the Judge Advocate General.
Ashley Roach,Office of the Legal Adviser - U.S. State Department
On Thursday Oct 17th, 2007
The Defense Education Forum hosted a program on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, abbreviated UNCLOS or LOST. UNCLOS was initially negotiated in the 1970's but in 1982 President Reagan vetoed the treaty. Now President Bush has urged the Senate to ratify the treaty and the Senate Foreign Affairs committee has held hearings in order to consider a vote and refer it to the Senate as a whole.
DEF brought together military, trade, legal, and political perspectives on LOST that represented both proponents and the opponents. CAPT Patrick Neher from the Navy's Office of the Judge Advocate General, is concerned about “locking in” the rights and responsibilities of the naval vessels upon the high seas. Currently the rules upon which we operate are customary and not within any code, law or treaty. Nations can easily make changes in their dealings that could hamper the United States ability to conduct necessary missions. In response to the charges that the military could be brought under legal restrictions from other nations, CAPT Neher pointed to the treaty provisions that allow exceptions for any military activities.
J. Ashley Roach from the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser acted to counteract many of the misgivings of the treaties opponents. He was concerned about the United States' ability to access mineral resources if we continue to refuse to ratify the treaty. Mr. Roach pointed out the myriad of officials and organizations, including current and former Secretary of States, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, Interior, and military officials such as Commandants of the Coast Guard support the treaty.
Those that oppose the ratification were represented by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President - Center for Security Policy. Mr. Gaffney's perspective was from a larger geo-political perspective. Not only is he concerned that the Navy is misreading the treaty but he pointed to a larger pattern in international affairs where the United States is constantly out voted in U.N. bodies. He made the point that the treaty was supposedly fixed by passing a separate treaty but some nations that joined the first treaty have not joined the second. Ambiguity in the law was one of Mr. Gaffney's themes. This included the idea that many of our activities, such as marine research or contracted transports carrying military supplies, that has military applications but are not technically military activities. Mr. Gaffney called for more hearings by several committees that would give the treaty “the kind of scrutiny that it deserves”.
Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO - Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), approached the debate from the perspective of trade, legal presidents, and the environment. Mr. Kogan made the point that European law is based upon the “precautionary principle”. This would require that decisions with the dispute resolution process be based upon the worse case scenario and therefor slow down or even stop development, research, and exploration. Especially troubling is the possible use of other environmental treaties that have been enacted to harm American business interests.
Both sides of the argument were eager for participants to read the treaty, and both sides believe that a reading would support their position.
In attendance were staff from several Senate offices and committees, Coast Guard, Navy and Marine officers. The Senate staff took the opportunity to ask questions of the panel. After the program many of the attendees and some panelists remained to further discuss the issue. A Navy JAG in attendance commented that this was one of the best forums on this issue that he had attended. ROA and the DEF are committed to providing such venues for open dialog about important national security issues.
Accessible on the Reserved Officers Association website, at:
http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=law_of_sea_video
Accessible on the ITSSD website, at:
Date/Time:
Oct 17 200710:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Location:
ROA Headquarters Minuteman Memorial BuildingSymposium Center, 4th Floor One Constitution Ave NEWashington, DC 20002Directions to ROA
Panel:
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President - Center for Security Policy
Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO - Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)
CAPT Patrick Neher, USN - Office of the Judge Advocate General.
Ashley Roach,Office of the Legal Adviser - U.S. State Department
On Thursday Oct 17th, 2007
The Defense Education Forum hosted a program on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, abbreviated UNCLOS or LOST. UNCLOS was initially negotiated in the 1970's but in 1982 President Reagan vetoed the treaty. Now President Bush has urged the Senate to ratify the treaty and the Senate Foreign Affairs committee has held hearings in order to consider a vote and refer it to the Senate as a whole.
DEF brought together military, trade, legal, and political perspectives on LOST that represented both proponents and the opponents. CAPT Patrick Neher from the Navy's Office of the Judge Advocate General, is concerned about “locking in” the rights and responsibilities of the naval vessels upon the high seas. Currently the rules upon which we operate are customary and not within any code, law or treaty. Nations can easily make changes in their dealings that could hamper the United States ability to conduct necessary missions. In response to the charges that the military could be brought under legal restrictions from other nations, CAPT Neher pointed to the treaty provisions that allow exceptions for any military activities.
J. Ashley Roach from the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser acted to counteract many of the misgivings of the treaties opponents. He was concerned about the United States' ability to access mineral resources if we continue to refuse to ratify the treaty. Mr. Roach pointed out the myriad of officials and organizations, including current and former Secretary of States, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, Interior, and military officials such as Commandants of the Coast Guard support the treaty.
Those that oppose the ratification were represented by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President - Center for Security Policy. Mr. Gaffney's perspective was from a larger geo-political perspective. Not only is he concerned that the Navy is misreading the treaty but he pointed to a larger pattern in international affairs where the United States is constantly out voted in U.N. bodies. He made the point that the treaty was supposedly fixed by passing a separate treaty but some nations that joined the first treaty have not joined the second. Ambiguity in the law was one of Mr. Gaffney's themes. This included the idea that many of our activities, such as marine research or contracted transports carrying military supplies, that has military applications but are not technically military activities. Mr. Gaffney called for more hearings by several committees that would give the treaty “the kind of scrutiny that it deserves”.
Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO - Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), approached the debate from the perspective of trade, legal presidents, and the environment. Mr. Kogan made the point that European law is based upon the “precautionary principle”. This would require that decisions with the dispute resolution process be based upon the worse case scenario and therefor slow down or even stop development, research, and exploration. Especially troubling is the possible use of other environmental treaties that have been enacted to harm American business interests.
Both sides of the argument were eager for participants to read the treaty, and both sides believe that a reading would support their position.
In attendance were staff from several Senate offices and committees, Coast Guard, Navy and Marine officers. The Senate staff took the opportunity to ask questions of the panel. After the program many of the attendees and some panelists remained to further discuss the issue. A Navy JAG in attendance commented that this was one of the best forums on this issue that he had attended. ROA and the DEF are committed to providing such venues for open dialog about important national security issues.
U.S. LOST at sea?
By James Lyons
Washington Times
October 5, 2007
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071005/COMMENTARY/110050029
From the days of our Founding Fathers, history has shown no president wants to leave a legacy of surrendering U.S. national sovereignty to a supranational organization. But this will become the case if the Senate — spurred by Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden — ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) now before it without proper debate by the Armed Services or Appropriations committees.
Sen. Biden wants to cut off debate and fast-track LOST. He is misguided. It is inconceivable to this naval officer why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America"s freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency that would be created by ratification of LOST.
The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been this nation's guarantee of our access to and freedom of the seas. I can site many maritime operations — from our blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine intelligence-gathering programs — that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from encroachment. All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty.
In a word, this is incomprehensible. Given the current war on terror, we cannot deny our Navy the ability to carry out legitimate naval intercept operations against vessels carrying possible nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. But such actions would be subject to LOST's arbitration deliberations — a process that in most cases would be decided unfavorably against the United States.
Regardless of what is promised by LOST's proponents, the Clinton administration did not fix the treaty's objectionable clauses. For example, ratification of LOST would subsequently require the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to the ability of the U.S. Navy to conduct its customary maritime operations unfettered.
Further, although LOST allows a party to exempt itself from disputes concerning "military activities," the Treaty does not define such activities, and it is therefore far from certain any U.S. decision to exempt itself from such dispute resolution will be honored by the other parties or dispute resolution bodies — particularly in light of the fact any supposedly exempt "military activity" can be framed as an "environmental activity" by those hostile to the United States.
The military's supply chain is also vulnerable to compulsory dispute resolution in this regard.
The military can also be adversely affected by the LOST requirement that all state parties take all measures necessary to "prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source" (Article 194). This requirement could also adversely affect the military's civilian supply chain and the industrial processes involved with supplying the military.
Signers must refrain from even the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Both Iran and North Korea would fall under this requirement. LOST requires submarines to travel on the surface and show their flag in territorial waters. This constraint would damage the Navy's ability to conduct many of its vital intelligence-gathering operations.
Provisions of LOST will regulate how U.S. businesses can mine the seabed. More important, the treaty requires U.S. companies to transfer strategic technologies to Third World countries, some of them declared or potential enemies of the U.S.
The Treaty will impose a "globe-tax" to finance a pseudo "second United Nations," complete with its own committees and councils. LOST creates a bureaucracy that enforces a mandatory arbitration process that will by its nature be adverse to U.S. corporations and infringe on private property rights.
LOST provides a forum for China and Russia to pursue threatening territorial claims. China has already manipulated LOST to claim sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, while Russia is pursuing its claim to the North Pole seabed by presenting its data to the LOST Continental Shelf Commission — a claim entertained by the commission though LOST clearly indicates that claims like Russia's are groundless.
If the United States joins a treaty that allows for this sort of manipulation, we will still be subject to the Treaty's requirements, and will not necessarily be able to influence decisions concerning China and Russia.
Mr. President, the United States will have only have one vote in all the various LOST committees. We will have no veto power, as we do at the U.N. Security Council. You've accomplished many positives for America, Mr. President. Don't add a huge negative. Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty in its present form. You will be hailed by future generations as a hero for rejecting this faulty, dangerous, anti-U.S. document.
James Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.
Washington Times
October 5, 2007
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071005/COMMENTARY/110050029
From the days of our Founding Fathers, history has shown no president wants to leave a legacy of surrendering U.S. national sovereignty to a supranational organization. But this will become the case if the Senate — spurred by Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden — ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) now before it without proper debate by the Armed Services or Appropriations committees.
Sen. Biden wants to cut off debate and fast-track LOST. He is misguided. It is inconceivable to this naval officer why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America"s freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency that would be created by ratification of LOST.
The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been this nation's guarantee of our access to and freedom of the seas. I can site many maritime operations — from our blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine intelligence-gathering programs — that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from encroachment. All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty.
In a word, this is incomprehensible. Given the current war on terror, we cannot deny our Navy the ability to carry out legitimate naval intercept operations against vessels carrying possible nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. But such actions would be subject to LOST's arbitration deliberations — a process that in most cases would be decided unfavorably against the United States.
Regardless of what is promised by LOST's proponents, the Clinton administration did not fix the treaty's objectionable clauses. For example, ratification of LOST would subsequently require the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to the ability of the U.S. Navy to conduct its customary maritime operations unfettered.
Further, although LOST allows a party to exempt itself from disputes concerning "military activities," the Treaty does not define such activities, and it is therefore far from certain any U.S. decision to exempt itself from such dispute resolution will be honored by the other parties or dispute resolution bodies — particularly in light of the fact any supposedly exempt "military activity" can be framed as an "environmental activity" by those hostile to the United States.
The military's supply chain is also vulnerable to compulsory dispute resolution in this regard.
The military can also be adversely affected by the LOST requirement that all state parties take all measures necessary to "prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source" (Article 194). This requirement could also adversely affect the military's civilian supply chain and the industrial processes involved with supplying the military.
Signers must refrain from even the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Both Iran and North Korea would fall under this requirement. LOST requires submarines to travel on the surface and show their flag in territorial waters. This constraint would damage the Navy's ability to conduct many of its vital intelligence-gathering operations.
Provisions of LOST will regulate how U.S. businesses can mine the seabed. More important, the treaty requires U.S. companies to transfer strategic technologies to Third World countries, some of them declared or potential enemies of the U.S.
The Treaty will impose a "globe-tax" to finance a pseudo "second United Nations," complete with its own committees and councils. LOST creates a bureaucracy that enforces a mandatory arbitration process that will by its nature be adverse to U.S. corporations and infringe on private property rights.
LOST provides a forum for China and Russia to pursue threatening territorial claims. China has already manipulated LOST to claim sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, while Russia is pursuing its claim to the North Pole seabed by presenting its data to the LOST Continental Shelf Commission — a claim entertained by the commission though LOST clearly indicates that claims like Russia's are groundless.
If the United States joins a treaty that allows for this sort of manipulation, we will still be subject to the Treaty's requirements, and will not necessarily be able to influence decisions concerning China and Russia.
Mr. President, the United States will have only have one vote in all the various LOST committees. We will have no veto power, as we do at the U.N. Security Council. You've accomplished many positives for America, Mr. President. Don't add a huge negative. Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty in its present form. You will be hailed by future generations as a hero for rejecting this faulty, dangerous, anti-U.S. document.
James Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.
LOST Reality
October 8, 2007
By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*
The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (a/k/a the Law of the Sea Treaty -‘LOST’), the leviathan of all non-science and non-economics-based UN regulatory environmental treaties, has once again resurfaced and reared its ugly head, despite having been deep-sixed’ years ago by the Reagan Administration.
Unfortunately, a legacy-oriented White House is now shepherding it through a kumbaya Congress whose majority enthusiastically embraces collectivist European-style environmental activism and multilateral treaty-making at the expense of U.S. constitutionally protected individualism and private property rights.
Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the U.S. and an environmentally obsessed and protectionist European Union concerning the EU’s blatantly illegal use of the contra-WTO (‘I fear, therefore I shall ban’) Precautionary Principle? Does it not realize that LOST proponents now seek to have this controversial political philosophy incorporated and/or read into the LOST as an irrefutable international legal standard so that the United States will be compelled to adopt it as domestic law too?
If the administration had done its homework, it would have come across the prior congressional testimony of Roger T. Rufe, Jr., a die-hard proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle. Mr. Rufe is a retired U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral and a former CEO of The Ocean Conservancy (OTC), an environmental activist group. He is currently serving at the pleasure of the president as Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Operations Directorate. According to Mr. Rufe, although “the concept ‘precautionary principle’ did not exist at the time UNCLOS was negotiated and... did not appear in the Convention...we [the OTC] urged...the United States...to ensure the appropriate application of this principle to guide decision-making... in future Convention amendments... Fortunately, the convention as a constitution does establish some principles and tools that may provide a framework for future application of the precautionary principle. Moreover, subsequent multilateral agreements related to UNCLOS include the use of the precautionary principle, including the Straddling Stocks Agreement... We think that it ought to be part of the convention” (emphasis added).
The prior Senate testimony of other LOST proponents is also quite revealing. In addition to Mr. Rufe, former Senator Claiborne Pell and current Senator Richard Lugar previously referred to LOST as a new “constitution for the world’s oceans”. In addition, my former law professor, Bernard Oxman, previously testified that LOST is “the most important and comprehensive international environmental agreement in existence” (emphasis added). Also, current Senator John McCain previously testified that the LOST “serves as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established” (emphasis added). And, a prior report prepared by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a very influential LOST standards body, explained that LOST is characterized as an ‘umbrella convention’ “because most of its provisions, being of a general kind, can be implemented only through specific operative regulations in other international treaties” (emphasis added). What their testimony does not reveal, however, is that LOST would also govern ALL U.S. commercial and private activities undertaken on dry land and in the air that could possibly affect the marine environment! International regulation/taxation of carbon dioxide emissions ala the Kyoto Protocol anyone??
Furthermore, Professor Oxman admitted in a recent telephone conversation that, “there is no foolproof way to prevent U.S. LOST treaty partners in the future from interpreting the LOST’s environmental provisions more stringently than required by the treaty’s express terms [i.e., pursuant to the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle], and thus, contrary to U.S. national interests”. In other words, he acknowledged that the U.S. would likely encounter stiff opposition from other LOST treaty parties, especially EU member states, and would be unable, for the foreseeable future, to secure more than a few like-minded allies that shared our understanding of the treaty.
Moreover, the prior testimony of Brooks Yeager of the World Wildlife Fund, a well known environmental activist group and proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle, reveals a plan to use the LOST dispute settlement mechanism to have this disputed principle read and incorporated into the treaty. According to Mr. Yeager, “The jurisprudence emerging out of the dispute settlement system of the LOS Convention has been considerably more promising from an environmental perspective than earlier case law generated by other adjudicative bodies, including the ICJ... Most importantly and consistent with its broad mandate over marine environmental cases, ITLOS has issued provisional measures on three occasions to protect marine environmental interests. And, in all these cases there has been at least implicit reliance upon the precautionary principle...ITLOS has attempted to implement the precautionary principle in several [three] of its provisional measures orders, while side-stepping difficult questions as to the content of the principle, and whether it has entered the pantheon of customary norms relating to environmental protection” since 1999 (emphasis added).
And, Mr. Yeager can surely recall that when he and his fellow activists promoted US ratification of the UN Stockholm Convention on ‘POPS’ back during 2004, they had then also endeavored to have the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle read and incorporated into not only that treaty, but also US federal law. They sought to achieve this result via enactment of implementing legislation that would have amended the US Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) so as to minimize the roles played by risk assessment and economic cost-benefit analysis.
Would Mr. Yeager, and those LOST proponents in the US military, the State Department and the congressional majority now have us believe that US LOST ratification will require no implementing legislation to amend the federal Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the Oil Pollution Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, CERCLA, the Invasive Species Act, etc. so that they directly or indirectly reflect the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle?
Please forgive me if I am being overly precautious, but, shouldn’t the U.S. and the American people properly prepare themselves before ratifying the LOST? Isn’t the U.S. Constitution the ‘supreme law of our land’, our territories and our territorial waters, including the continental shelf? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution supersede and limit for U.S. citizens the scope and application of ALL international treaties to which the U.S. becomes a party? Are not our exclusive private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment from uncompensated regulatory ‘takings’, outright expropriations and international taxation, whether emanating from our own government, foreign governments or the UN’s International Seabed Authority? And, what other UN environmental treaties, specific operative regulations and international standards susceptible to EU reinterpretation must the U.S. be concerned about? What have we not been told that needs to be heard? How much more of the LOST regulatory iceberg lurks below the ocean’s surface?
Independent research confirms a negative LOST reality. If ratified by the United States, LOST would likely expose U.S. small and medium-sized companies, individual citizens and the U.S. military’s civilian technology supply-chain to new significant costs and burdens to which they are NOT already subject under current U.S. environmental law. In particular, private property and due process rights would be lost, and military and civilian hi-technologies would be banned, restricted, and/or taxed by domestic and international bureaucracies not subject to U.S. control or oversight, if it is merely possible, without scientific proof being shown, that they pose some possible future hazard to the marine environment. In addition, the status and scope of intellectual property rights underlying products and processes derived and commercialized from discoveries of sea-based bio-organisms would also be governed by UN and other international tribunals rather than by the WTO or WIPO. As a result, the U.S. could undoubtedly lose its global economic competitiveness, and above all, its national sovereignty.
For these and other reasons, the Wall Street Journal appropriately criticized the LOST as being contrary to ‘the U.S. national interest’. It correctly emphasized that if the regulation-laden LOST were ratified, it would likely subject U.S. maritime and economic power “to the whims of a highly politicized U.N. bureaucracy often driven by an anti-American agenda”.
If there were any lingering doubts about the real risk that uncontrollable international bodies, such as the UN’s LOST Secretariat, Seabed Authority and Tribunal, could seriously threaten U.S. constitutionally protected private property rights concentrated along U.S. coastlines, one need only look to the International (U.S.-Canada) Boundary Commission (IBC)’s recent harassment of Washington state residents Shirley-Ann and Herbert Leu.
According to the Seattle, Los Angeles, and Washington Times newspapers, Mr. and Mrs. Leu received a hand-delivered letter this past February from IBC Commissioner Dennis Schornack. It ordered them to remove, at their own expense, a $15,000 concrete retaining wall built pursuant to Blaine, Washington municipal zoning ordinances, on their own clearly marked private property. Apparently, although the wall was 8 feet away from the Canadian border, it encroached 30 inches into a 20-foot boundary vista (ditch) running along their entire lot. In effect, the IBC, an international bureaucracy, claimed that it possessed the sole and absolute authority to condemn and regulate the development of the Leu’s property (and for that matter, all U.S. private property located along the U.S.-Canadian border) without providing the Leus with ‘just’ compensation and ‘due process’ (adequate notice), as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Most remarkably, Mr. Schornack and the commission have argued that since they are not a U.S. government agency subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution, they are not obligated to compromise on these issues. And, when President Bush stepped in to fire Mr. Schornack, the sole acting U.S. commissioner on the IBC, for not representing the interests of the United States and its citizens, Schornack responded that he represented the international community, had been appointed for life and could not be fired!
What is really going on here? Have LOST proponents avoided discussing the treaty’s many hidden provisions because of the potential for situations like this? Why have they not explained to the American people the costs, risks and benefits associated with ratifying the LOST, or the nuances of the LOST ratification process itself? What are they afraid to tell us what we need to hear?
As the ultimate representative of the American people, both chambers of the U.S. Congress must hold open public hearings on LOST ratification before the Senate gives its advice and consent. It must educate Americans about how the expansive LOST regime, as it will likely be implemented by the U.S., the UN and foreign countries, would directly and indirectly impact their pocketbooks, their rights and their daily lives. Given what has befallen the Leus, a fresh sea breeze is needed to provide some reality and context to what might surely become a surreal experience for many other Americans in the future.
* Lawrence Kogan is President and CEO of The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. ITSSD studies are accessible online at: http://www.itssd.org/ .
By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*
The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (a/k/a the Law of the Sea Treaty -‘LOST’), the leviathan of all non-science and non-economics-based UN regulatory environmental treaties, has once again resurfaced and reared its ugly head, despite having been deep-sixed’ years ago by the Reagan Administration.
Unfortunately, a legacy-oriented White House is now shepherding it through a kumbaya Congress whose majority enthusiastically embraces collectivist European-style environmental activism and multilateral treaty-making at the expense of U.S. constitutionally protected individualism and private property rights.
Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the U.S. and an environmentally obsessed and protectionist European Union concerning the EU’s blatantly illegal use of the contra-WTO (‘I fear, therefore I shall ban’) Precautionary Principle? Does it not realize that LOST proponents now seek to have this controversial political philosophy incorporated and/or read into the LOST as an irrefutable international legal standard so that the United States will be compelled to adopt it as domestic law too?
If the administration had done its homework, it would have come across the prior congressional testimony of Roger T. Rufe, Jr., a die-hard proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle. Mr. Rufe is a retired U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral and a former CEO of The Ocean Conservancy (OTC), an environmental activist group. He is currently serving at the pleasure of the president as Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Operations Directorate. According to Mr. Rufe, although “the concept ‘precautionary principle’ did not exist at the time UNCLOS was negotiated and... did not appear in the Convention...we [the OTC] urged...the United States...to ensure the appropriate application of this principle to guide decision-making... in future Convention amendments... Fortunately, the convention as a constitution does establish some principles and tools that may provide a framework for future application of the precautionary principle. Moreover, subsequent multilateral agreements related to UNCLOS include the use of the precautionary principle, including the Straddling Stocks Agreement... We think that it ought to be part of the convention” (emphasis added).
The prior Senate testimony of other LOST proponents is also quite revealing. In addition to Mr. Rufe, former Senator Claiborne Pell and current Senator Richard Lugar previously referred to LOST as a new “constitution for the world’s oceans”. In addition, my former law professor, Bernard Oxman, previously testified that LOST is “the most important and comprehensive international environmental agreement in existence” (emphasis added). Also, current Senator John McCain previously testified that the LOST “serves as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established” (emphasis added). And, a prior report prepared by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a very influential LOST standards body, explained that LOST is characterized as an ‘umbrella convention’ “because most of its provisions, being of a general kind, can be implemented only through specific operative regulations in other international treaties” (emphasis added). What their testimony does not reveal, however, is that LOST would also govern ALL U.S. commercial and private activities undertaken on dry land and in the air that could possibly affect the marine environment! International regulation/taxation of carbon dioxide emissions ala the Kyoto Protocol anyone??
Furthermore, Professor Oxman admitted in a recent telephone conversation that, “there is no foolproof way to prevent U.S. LOST treaty partners in the future from interpreting the LOST’s environmental provisions more stringently than required by the treaty’s express terms [i.e., pursuant to the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle], and thus, contrary to U.S. national interests”. In other words, he acknowledged that the U.S. would likely encounter stiff opposition from other LOST treaty parties, especially EU member states, and would be unable, for the foreseeable future, to secure more than a few like-minded allies that shared our understanding of the treaty.
Moreover, the prior testimony of Brooks Yeager of the World Wildlife Fund, a well known environmental activist group and proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle, reveals a plan to use the LOST dispute settlement mechanism to have this disputed principle read and incorporated into the treaty. According to Mr. Yeager, “The jurisprudence emerging out of the dispute settlement system of the LOS Convention has been considerably more promising from an environmental perspective than earlier case law generated by other adjudicative bodies, including the ICJ... Most importantly and consistent with its broad mandate over marine environmental cases, ITLOS has issued provisional measures on three occasions to protect marine environmental interests. And, in all these cases there has been at least implicit reliance upon the precautionary principle...ITLOS has attempted to implement the precautionary principle in several [three] of its provisional measures orders, while side-stepping difficult questions as to the content of the principle, and whether it has entered the pantheon of customary norms relating to environmental protection” since 1999 (emphasis added).
And, Mr. Yeager can surely recall that when he and his fellow activists promoted US ratification of the UN Stockholm Convention on ‘POPS’ back during 2004, they had then also endeavored to have the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle read and incorporated into not only that treaty, but also US federal law. They sought to achieve this result via enactment of implementing legislation that would have amended the US Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) so as to minimize the roles played by risk assessment and economic cost-benefit analysis.
Would Mr. Yeager, and those LOST proponents in the US military, the State Department and the congressional majority now have us believe that US LOST ratification will require no implementing legislation to amend the federal Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the Oil Pollution Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, CERCLA, the Invasive Species Act, etc. so that they directly or indirectly reflect the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle?
Please forgive me if I am being overly precautious, but, shouldn’t the U.S. and the American people properly prepare themselves before ratifying the LOST? Isn’t the U.S. Constitution the ‘supreme law of our land’, our territories and our territorial waters, including the continental shelf? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution supersede and limit for U.S. citizens the scope and application of ALL international treaties to which the U.S. becomes a party? Are not our exclusive private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment from uncompensated regulatory ‘takings’, outright expropriations and international taxation, whether emanating from our own government, foreign governments or the UN’s International Seabed Authority? And, what other UN environmental treaties, specific operative regulations and international standards susceptible to EU reinterpretation must the U.S. be concerned about? What have we not been told that needs to be heard? How much more of the LOST regulatory iceberg lurks below the ocean’s surface?
Independent research confirms a negative LOST reality. If ratified by the United States, LOST would likely expose U.S. small and medium-sized companies, individual citizens and the U.S. military’s civilian technology supply-chain to new significant costs and burdens to which they are NOT already subject under current U.S. environmental law. In particular, private property and due process rights would be lost, and military and civilian hi-technologies would be banned, restricted, and/or taxed by domestic and international bureaucracies not subject to U.S. control or oversight, if it is merely possible, without scientific proof being shown, that they pose some possible future hazard to the marine environment. In addition, the status and scope of intellectual property rights underlying products and processes derived and commercialized from discoveries of sea-based bio-organisms would also be governed by UN and other international tribunals rather than by the WTO or WIPO. As a result, the U.S. could undoubtedly lose its global economic competitiveness, and above all, its national sovereignty.
For these and other reasons, the Wall Street Journal appropriately criticized the LOST as being contrary to ‘the U.S. national interest’. It correctly emphasized that if the regulation-laden LOST were ratified, it would likely subject U.S. maritime and economic power “to the whims of a highly politicized U.N. bureaucracy often driven by an anti-American agenda”.
If there were any lingering doubts about the real risk that uncontrollable international bodies, such as the UN’s LOST Secretariat, Seabed Authority and Tribunal, could seriously threaten U.S. constitutionally protected private property rights concentrated along U.S. coastlines, one need only look to the International (U.S.-Canada) Boundary Commission (IBC)’s recent harassment of Washington state residents Shirley-Ann and Herbert Leu.
According to the Seattle, Los Angeles, and Washington Times newspapers, Mr. and Mrs. Leu received a hand-delivered letter this past February from IBC Commissioner Dennis Schornack. It ordered them to remove, at their own expense, a $15,000 concrete retaining wall built pursuant to Blaine, Washington municipal zoning ordinances, on their own clearly marked private property. Apparently, although the wall was 8 feet away from the Canadian border, it encroached 30 inches into a 20-foot boundary vista (ditch) running along their entire lot. In effect, the IBC, an international bureaucracy, claimed that it possessed the sole and absolute authority to condemn and regulate the development of the Leu’s property (and for that matter, all U.S. private property located along the U.S.-Canadian border) without providing the Leus with ‘just’ compensation and ‘due process’ (adequate notice), as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Most remarkably, Mr. Schornack and the commission have argued that since they are not a U.S. government agency subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution, they are not obligated to compromise on these issues. And, when President Bush stepped in to fire Mr. Schornack, the sole acting U.S. commissioner on the IBC, for not representing the interests of the United States and its citizens, Schornack responded that he represented the international community, had been appointed for life and could not be fired!
What is really going on here? Have LOST proponents avoided discussing the treaty’s many hidden provisions because of the potential for situations like this? Why have they not explained to the American people the costs, risks and benefits associated with ratifying the LOST, or the nuances of the LOST ratification process itself? What are they afraid to tell us what we need to hear?
As the ultimate representative of the American people, both chambers of the U.S. Congress must hold open public hearings on LOST ratification before the Senate gives its advice and consent. It must educate Americans about how the expansive LOST regime, as it will likely be implemented by the U.S., the UN and foreign countries, would directly and indirectly impact their pocketbooks, their rights and their daily lives. Given what has befallen the Leus, a fresh sea breeze is needed to provide some reality and context to what might surely become a surreal experience for many other Americans in the future.
* Lawrence Kogan is President and CEO of The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. ITSSD studies are accessible online at: http://www.itssd.org/ .
ITSSD Public Service Announcement - Law of the Sea Treaty
http://www.itssd.org/Press%20Release/ITSSD%20Public%20Service%20Announcement%20-%20Law%20of%20the%20Sea%20Treaty.pdf
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS SOON LIKELY TO APPROVE, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC DEBATE, RATIFICATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION (UNCLOS), THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY TREATY EVER CONCEIVED BY MANKIND.THE UNCLOS WILL PROVIDE THE UNITED NATIONS AND FUTURE U.S. GOVERNMENTS WITH LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO INVEST THEMSELVES WITH EXPANSIVE NEW POWERS TO IMPOSE COSTLY AND BURDENSOME NON-SCIENCE AND NON-ECONOMICS-BASED EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (HIDDEN TAXES) UPON ALL AMERICANS THAT WILL SEVERELY IMPAIR THE USE & VALUE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WHAT HAVE YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BEEN DOING TO ENSURE THAT YOUR CONSTITUTIONALLY-GUARANTEED PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AMERICA’S NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND AMERICA’S MILITARY CAPABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF WILL BE PROTECTED, AND NOT DELEGATED TO AN INTERNATIONAL UNELECTED INSTITUTION IN WHICH THE U.S. HAS ONLY ONE VOTE?
The prior message was a public service announcement from the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development. The Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development is an independent, not-for-profit, non-partisan educational organization, based in Princeton, NJ, USA. Its charitable mission is to promote a positive paradigm of sustainable development consistent with private property, free market and WTO rules. The ITSSD examines evolving international law and policy as it relates to trade, science, technology and sustainable economic freedom and development around the world. ITSSD research is accessible on its website at: http://www.itssd.org/ and on its several blogs (See: Internal ITSSD Weblinks above)
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS SOON LIKELY TO APPROVE, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC DEBATE, RATIFICATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION (UNCLOS), THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY TREATY EVER CONCEIVED BY MANKIND.THE UNCLOS WILL PROVIDE THE UNITED NATIONS AND FUTURE U.S. GOVERNMENTS WITH LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO INVEST THEMSELVES WITH EXPANSIVE NEW POWERS TO IMPOSE COSTLY AND BURDENSOME NON-SCIENCE AND NON-ECONOMICS-BASED EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (HIDDEN TAXES) UPON ALL AMERICANS THAT WILL SEVERELY IMPAIR THE USE & VALUE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WHAT HAVE YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BEEN DOING TO ENSURE THAT YOUR CONSTITUTIONALLY-GUARANTEED PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AMERICA’S NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND AMERICA’S MILITARY CAPABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF WILL BE PROTECTED, AND NOT DELEGATED TO AN INTERNATIONAL UNELECTED INSTITUTION IN WHICH THE U.S. HAS ONLY ONE VOTE?
The prior message was a public service announcement from the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development. The Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development is an independent, not-for-profit, non-partisan educational organization, based in Princeton, NJ, USA. Its charitable mission is to promote a positive paradigm of sustainable development consistent with private property, free market and WTO rules. The ITSSD examines evolving international law and policy as it relates to trade, science, technology and sustainable economic freedom and development around the world. ITSSD research is accessible on its website at: http://www.itssd.org/ and on its several blogs (See: Internal ITSSD Weblinks above)
Abuse of Constitutional Powers: Simon Espersen blog Denmark
http://www.coin.dk/blogs/index.php?title=abuse_of_constitutional_powers&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society
but the people themselves; and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of
abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to
William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
Amendment V to the U.S. Constitution (1791)
“No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.”
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society
but the people themselves; and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of
abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to
William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
--------------------------
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
“...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution...”
“...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution...”
-----------------------
Amendment V to the U.S. Constitution (1791)
“No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.”
------------------------
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS SOON LIKELY TO APPROVE,
WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC DEBATE, RATIFICATION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION (UNCLOS), THE
LARGEST AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONAL
REGULATORY TREATY EVER CONCEIVED BY MANKIND.
THE UNCLOS WILL PROVIDE THE UNITED NATIONS AND FUTURE
U.S. GOVERNMENTS WITH LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO INVEST
THEMSELVES WITH EXPANSIVE NEW POWERS TO IMPOSE COSTLY
AND BURDENSOME NON-SCIENCE AND NON-ECONOMICS-BASED
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (HIDDEN TAXES)
UPON ALL AMERICANS THAT WILL SEVERELY IMPAIR THE USE &
VALUE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC DEBATE, RATIFICATION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION (UNCLOS), THE
LARGEST AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONAL
REGULATORY TREATY EVER CONCEIVED BY MANKIND.
THE UNCLOS WILL PROVIDE THE UNITED NATIONS AND FUTURE
U.S. GOVERNMENTS WITH LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO INVEST
THEMSELVES WITH EXPANSIVE NEW POWERS TO IMPOSE COSTLY
AND BURDENSOME NON-SCIENCE AND NON-ECONOMICS-BASED
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (HIDDEN TAXES)
UPON ALL AMERICANS THAT WILL SEVERELY IMPAIR THE USE &
VALUE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
----------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
